RE: Samba and spinlocks on Linux (was Re: REPOST: Meaning of"tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
If you are referring to: lock spin count = lock spin time = They are working very well 2.2.7a thank you. Here are my settings: lock spin count = 50 ;default=10 ;test with 6 wks show anything higher or lower than 15 cause increased load on server with slower performance lock spin time = 15 Regards - Gerald Drouillard Owner and Consultant Drouillard & Associates, Inc. http://www.Drouillard.ca > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 12:40 PM > To: Volker Lendecke > Cc: Ralf G. R. Bergs; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Samba and spinlocks on Linux (was Re: REPOST: Meaning of > "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?" > > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:50:50AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > > > > P.S: I might be wrong, but I'm not sure whether the spinlock > code ever actually > > worked. Jeremy? > > Yes they did work and were tested at one stage, but bit-rot may > have occurred since then. > > Jeremy.
Re: Samba and spinlocks on Linux (was Re: REPOST: Meaning of"tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:50:50AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > > P.S: I might be wrong, but I'm not sure whether the spinlock code ever actually > worked. Jeremy? Yes they did work and were tested at one stage, but bit-rot may have occurred since then. Jeremy.
Re: Samba and spinlocks on Linux (was Re: REPOST: Meaning of"tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:50:50 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: [...] >you do not have a *very* good reason to enable them, could you please retry >without spinlocks? Ok, I'm just recompiling Samba without spinlock support. Obviously I have to wait until this night so that the fileserver becomes less loaded to replace Samba. I will get back to you until I can report whether the (original) problem went away. Thanks, Ralf -- L I N U X .~. The Choice /V\ of a GNU /( )\ Generation ^^-^^
Re: Samba and spinlocks on Linux (was Re: REPOST: Meaning of"tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:21:15AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: > I guess I should have defined CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK when compiling my > kernel since I also configured Samba with "--with-spinlocks": Ok, this might explain it. Spinlocks are definitely a less tested part of the code. I have never really activated them. At least under Linux fnctl locks should be fast enough to cope with nearly any load. > Would you recommend that I recompile the kernel to enable spinlock support > (since this is a two-way SMP machine), or would you rather recommend that I > don't use spinlocks (i.e. recompile Samba NOT to try to use spinlocks)? The difference is that without Samba support for spinlocks you get another round-trip into the kernel for each lock. Linux is quite fast with that, so if you do not have a *very* good reason to enable them, could you please retry without spinlocks? Volker P.S: I might be wrong, but I'm not sure whether the spinlock code ever actually worked. Jeremy? msg05802/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 19:34:16 -0600 (CST), Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: >On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: > >> What exactly does that mean? I compiled Samba with large file support. >> Was this an error? I absolutely NEED large-file support. (To recap, this >> is under Debian/GNU Linux/i386 3.0, running kernel 2.4.20.) > >tdb's can only be < 4Gb. It's not a 64-bit database. >This has nothing to do with Samba's support for transfering >64-bit files. > >Why is the unexpected.tdb growing that fast? I'm not sure whether I understand you correctly. The above file, unexpected.tdb, is NOT larger than 4G in size, it's just a few K! Could you elaborate, please? Thanks. -- L I N U X .~. The Choice /V\ of a GNU /( )\ Generation ^^-^^
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: > What exactly does that mean? I compiled Samba with large file support. > Was this an error? I absolutely NEED large-file support. (To recap, this > is under Debian/GNU Linux/i386 3.0, running kernel 2.4.20.) tdb's can only be < 4Gb. It's not a 64-bit database. This has nothing to do with Samba's support for transfering 64-bit files. Why is the unexpected.tdb growing that fast? cheers, jerry -- Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there." --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+QGoZIR7qMdg1EfYRAouaAKCmXk6xqOwLX3AfYN5XAcRc3Edf/ACeNQAT 0opuqEyLNp2DOIUV8mENlC0= =gi0U -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:37:17 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: [...] >> Why should Samba be the ONLY (apparent) application that doesn't feel hap= >py with=20 >> XFS over EVMS? > >I'm running Samba on XFS+EVMS (on Debian ;) with no problems. Even on >buggy versions of XFS, I've never seen this error; I don't think the >filesystem is the cause. OTOH, I haven't used 2.4.20 yet for this >environment. As I wrote earlier I also can't believe it's a filesystem issue. >When you say you compiled with large file support, does that mean you >made changes to the build scripts? Samba should already build with LFS >support on Linux 2.4. Yup, I had to change the build scripts. If I remember correctly the Debian package comes with "shrink-wrapped" configure.cache files so that they would always overwrite certain changes I made to the configure statement inside debian/rules. I think that there was a already a bug filed against the non-support of large files. The poster of this bug report also mentioned that you had to recompile it in order to get LFS. OTOH everything I just wrote could be wrong. I'm currently working on a multitude of "building areas" so I could confuse something with something totally different. :-) -- L I N U X .~. The Choice /V\ of a GNU /( )\ Generation ^^-^^
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:17:34AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: > On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:44:18 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote: > > >> The system in question is a Debian i386 "stable" (3.0) system, kernel is > >> 2.4.20 release (with some patches such as EVMS and XFS, but EVMS is NOT in > use > >> for shares exported via Samba!!), Samba is 2.2.7a (a Debian package that I > >> created myself.) > > > >I would try again with a standard ext2/3 file system. > Ok, now /var/run/samba is an ext3 filesystem -- and the problem is back again. > :-( > So you could argue, "Ok, it's EVMS then which is the culprit," because > filesystem is on an EVMS logical volume. > But I simply cannot believe this. > Why should Samba be the ONLY (apparent) application that doesn't feel happy with > XFS over EVMS? I'm running Samba on XFS+EVMS (on Debian ;) with no problems. Even on buggy versions of XFS, I've never seen this error; I don't think the filesystem is the cause. OTOH, I haven't used 2.4.20 yet for this environment. When you say you compiled with large file support, does that mean you made changes to the build scripts? Samba should already build with LFS support on Linux 2.4. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer msg05769/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:17:34AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: > Ok, now /var/run/samba is an ext3 filesystem -- and the problem is back > again. :-( Thanks nevertheless. As one resort, could you try use mmap = no Volker msg05756/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:17:34AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: > Ok, now /var/run/samba is an ext3 filesystem -- and the problem is back again. > :-( > > So you could argue, "Ok, it's EVMS then which is the culprit," because > filesystem is on an EVMS logical volume. > > But I simply cannot believe this. We have here XFS+EVMS (1.2) combination running with Samba shares. Never experienced the problem with tdb. -- / Alexander Bokovoy --- The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones. -- Nathaniel Howe
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:44:18 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote: >> The system in question is a Debian i386 "stable" (3.0) system, kernel is >> 2.4.20 release (with some patches such as EVMS and XFS, but EVMS is NOT in use >> for shares exported via Samba!!), Samba is 2.2.7a (a Debian package that I >> created myself.) > >I would try again with a standard ext2/3 file system. Ok, now /var/run/samba is an ext3 filesystem -- and the problem is back again. :-( So you could argue, "Ok, it's EVMS then which is the culprit," because filesystem is on an EVMS logical volume. But I simply cannot believe this. Why should Samba be the ONLY (apparent) application that doesn't feel happy with XFS over EVMS? Any thoughts? -- L I N U X .~. The Choice /V\ of a GNU /( )\ Generation ^^-^^
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:20:26 -0600 (CST), Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: [...] >Looks like the tdb went over the 4Gb line. As a quick work around, >Stop nmbd; rm /var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb; and start nmbd back up. No, this has never been a work-around. The problem comes up again VERY quickly. >It looks like an overflow in the tdb read offset. I don't think tdb's >support 64-bit file size (of the actual tdb itself) IIRC. This is by >design I believe. What exactly does that mean? I compiled Samba with large file support. Was this an error? I absolutely NEED large-file support. (To recap, this is under Debian/GNU Linux/i386 3.0, running kernel 2.4.20.) Thanks, Ralf -- L I N U X .~. The Choice /V\ of a GNU /( )\ Generation ^^-^^
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: > since I upgraded our fileserver running Debian 3.0/i386 with Samba 2.2.7a (a > package I created myself) I'm seeing the following messages in syslog: > > Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/01/28 14:55:50, 0] > tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) > Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: tdb(/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): > tdb_oob len -2320 beyond eof at 16384 > Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/01/28 14:55:50, 0] > tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) > Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: tdb(/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): > tdb_free: left read failed at 4294964952 (4096) Looks like the tdb went over the 4Gb line. As a quick work around, Stop nmbd; rm /var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb; and start nmbd back up. It looks like an overflow in the tdb read offset. I don't think tdb's support 64-bit file size (of the actual tdb itself) IIRC. This is by design I believe. cheers, jerry -- Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there." --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+Pvk7IR7qMdg1EfYRAlhZAJ9kxVGcjjrQIBlnEsWVTrdgRbfHiQCg0nKi mPGFSgQvhge1ztS8p/o/tAY= =49I4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:44:18 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote: >On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 15:58, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: >> On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:47:11 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote: >> >> >> >you can try to delete unexpected.tdb >> >> >it does not hold any vital information. >> >> >> >> The problem has reappeared even after I removed the above file: >> >> >> >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/02/02 11:18:29, 0] >> >> tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) >> >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: tdb >> (/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): >> >> tdb_oob len -2320 beyond eof at 24576 >> >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/02/02 11:18:29, 0] >> >> tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) >> >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: tdb >> (/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): >> >> tdb_free: left read failed at 4294964952 (4096) >> [...] >> >> >do they reside on an nfs mount? or any other "alternative" filesystem? >> >> "They?" Does "what" reside on an NFS mount? > >sorry I mean the tdb files. Weell, the TDB files (/var/run/samba) DO reside on an "alternative" filesystem in your words: They're on an XFS filesystem that itself resides on an EVMS logical volume that itself resides on a RAID-5 region. :-) But the thing is that the system otherwise seems to run extremely well -- I don't see ANY other suspicious log entries. [...] >> The system in question is a Debian i386 "stable" (3.0) system, kernel is >> 2.4.20 release (with some patches such as EVMS and XFS, but EVMS is NOT in use >> for shares exported via Samba!!), Samba is 2.2.7a (a Debian package that I >> created myself.) > >I would try again with a standard ext2/3 file system. Just compile and >install all samba related file under a well tested file system like >ext2/3, I have had no problem with XFS, but 2.4.20 may have broke >something subtle, who knows? This is just not possible. The system we're talking about is a production fileserver for some hundred or so users. I can't change the partitioning scheme, nor can I change the filesystem used. Shouldn't we rather try to isolate and fix the problem, rather than working around it? Thanks, Ralf -- L I N U X .~. The Choice /V\ of a GNU /( )\ Generation ^^-^^
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 15:58, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: > On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:47:11 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote: > > >> >you can try to delete unexpected.tdb > >> >it does not hold any vital information. > >> > >> The problem has reappeared even after I removed the above file: > >> > >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/02/02 11:18:29, 0] > >> tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) > >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: tdb > (/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): > >> tdb_oob len -2320 beyond eof at 24576 > >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/02/02 11:18:29, 0] > >> tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) > >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: tdb > (/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): > >> tdb_free: left read failed at 4294964952 (4096) > [...] > > >do they reside on an nfs mount? or any other "alternative" filesystem? > > "They?" Does "what" reside on an NFS mount? sorry I mean the tdb files. > I have only shares with local XFS filesystems (as large as 250G.) > >what kernel? what samba version? > > The system in question is a Debian i386 "stable" (3.0) system, kernel is > 2.4.20 release (with some patches such as EVMS and XFS, but EVMS is NOT in use > for shares exported via Samba!!), Samba is 2.2.7a (a Debian package that I > created myself.) I would try again with a standard ext2/3 file system. Just compile and install all samba related file under a well tested file system like ext2/3, I have had no problem with XFS, but 2.4.20 may have broke something subtle, who knows? bye, Simo -- Simo Sorce- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Samba Team- http://www.samba.org Italian Site - http://samba.xsec.it
Re: REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:47:11 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote: >> >you can try to delete unexpected.tdb >> >it does not hold any vital information. >> >> The problem has reappeared even after I removed the above file: >> >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/02/02 11:18:29, 0] >> tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: tdb (/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): >> tdb_oob len -2320 beyond eof at 24576 >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/02/02 11:18:29, 0] >> tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) >> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: tdb (/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): >> tdb_free: left read failed at 4294964952 (4096) [...] >do they reside on an nfs mount? or any other "alternative" filesystem? "They?" Does "what" reside on an NFS mount? I have only shares with local XFS filesystems (as large as 250G.) >what kernel? what samba version? The system in question is a Debian i386 "stable" (3.0) system, kernel is 2.4.20 release (with some patches such as EVMS and XFS, but EVMS is NOT in use for shares exported via Samba!!), Samba is 2.2.7a (a Debian package that I created myself.) >please reply on list, I'm not sure I can follow the discussion. Ok. Help?! Thanks, Ralf -- L I N U X .~. The Choice /V\ of a GNU /( )\ Generation ^^-^^
REPOST: Meaning of "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
Hi there, I can't believe that NO-ONE of you tech guys can comment on this?! Thanks, Ralf = 8x == Hi there, since I upgraded our fileserver running Debian 3.0/i386 with Samba 2.2.7a (a package I created myself) I'm seeing the following messages in syslog: Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/01/28 14:55:50, 0] tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: tdb(/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): tdb_oob len -2320 beyond eof at 16384 Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/01/28 14:55:50, 0] tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531) Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: tdb(/var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb): tdb_free: left read failed at 4294964952 (4096) I've already searched Google, but to no avail. Is this something to worry about? Can I stop these messages (or rather the cause of those messages)? Or should I just filter them away? Thanks, Ralf -- L I N U X .~. The Choice /V\ of a GNU /( )\ Generation ^^-^^
